Sue world leaders $1 billion for global warming?

Tags:

In a global stunt, a U.S. environmental activist is poised to lodge a $1 billion damages class action lawsuit at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against all world leaders for failing to prevent global warming.

Activist and blogger Dan Bloom says he will sue world leaders for “intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2″.

He intends to lodge the lawsuit in the week starting Sunday, Dec. 6.

The prosecutor’s office at the ICC, the world’s first permanent court (pictured below right) for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, says it is allowed to receive information on crimes that may fall within the court’s jurisdiction from any source.

“Such information does not per se trigger a judicial proceeding,” the prosecutor’s office hastened to add.

The question is: will or should the prosecutor take on the case?

One might argue in defence that world leaders are in fact trying to impose climate-saving measures. In Vienna last year, almost all rich nations agreed to consider cuts in greenhouse emissions of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Talks on a new climate treaty will be held in Poznan, Poland, from Dec. 1-12.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N. Climate Panel, says the cuts are needed to limit temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, an amount seen by the EU, some other nations and many environmentalists as a threshold for “dangerous” climate change.

Granted then that there is growing consensus that climate change poses a real threat, is it not only world leaders who are failing to prevent global warming?

Perhaps the global collective of individuals, governments and industry is to blame and the ICC lawsuit a valid publicity stunt in the constant battle to raise awareness and prompt action?

From a purely legal point of view, he would have to prove that there is some conceivable and legal course of action (so declaring military law and shooting SUV drivers is out), which could have been taken by these leaders, which if taken would have reduced warming.

Clearly, nobody can prove such a proposition. The real problem is that the most likely outcome is that he will simply harden the resolve of all those SUV drivers.

Take it to court. At least that way the science will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the globe HAS NOT WARMED in 10 YEARS, even though carbon emissions have continued to rise! Case dismissed. At least the people aren’t fooled. Thank God for democracy.

“The question is: will or should the prosecutor take on the case?” As the plaintiff for this class-action lawsuit, I do hope the ICC will take the case. I think they should. However, while some readers here might see my lawsuit is futile, it is not pointless. Some will agree with me, others will disagree. Let the worldwide discussion, pro and con, begin. Politely. While some observers might call this a “publicity stunt”, and in many ways it could be seen as such, I prefer to call it a “publicity gesture” or a “publicity outreach”, to say to all world leaders and IPCC conference participants in Poland next month: “Please listen to James Lovelock and Hames Hansen and Tim Flannery and Fred Pearce and Mark Lynas and Sharon Astyk and James Howard Kunstler now. Before it is too late!”

Great job, I wish more people would consider the same. To back your case you might want to consider the fact that alternative environmentally clean energy sources are available right now and have been for the last 100 years. Take a look at the prototypes developed by an Australian company Lutec Australia (http://www.lutec.com.au/) and check out the work being done at the Orion Project (http://www.theorionproject.org/en/index .html) to have these energy sources developed to fruition. All the best!

Global Warming or Climate Change alarmists are so transparently pathetic in their attempt to perpetuate this lie. The only “growing consensus” out there is the ranks of educated and informed people who believe that this is the greatest scam in world history – nothing but another power and money grab with a healthy dose of global social reengineering thrown in. The largest collaboration of liars, thieves and the ignorant ever.

Their desperation is becomming increasingly evident as they are forced to falsify data and aggressively attack the skeptics (anything to avoid debate) – because they realize that in spite of the fact that CO2 has continued to steadily rise the earth has been cooling for over a decade and we are facing rapid, record-breaking global cooling.

The head of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said that La Nina is likely to trigger a small drop in average global temperatures this year but where he also stated that temperatures in 2008 could still be way above average and that 2008 could in fact exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases. Lets get out full facts right please before we made assumptions!

This is a step in the right direction and will have tremendous symbolic value. If we don’t act now, there will surely come a time when the public will demand criminal prosecution for those who knew when it was still possible to stop the disaster but didn’t do what was required. If civilisation crashes, it may even happen that the biological descendants of the present elite will be hunted like vermin. Better they go to jail now.

“If civilisation crashes, it may even happen that the biological descendants of the present elite will be hunted like vermin. Better they go to jail now.”

I’m assuming by “elite” he means folks like Prince Charles, Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, the Entire Government of the UK the UN and the remaining elite in the international financial markets pushing the climate change agenda?

The ICC was sold to the world (and especially the U.S.) as a world court that wouldn’t be involved in political issues or driven by politics, yet here the “activist” plaintiff and all the commentators are cheering it on to get involved in a political issue. So funny…

I see this from two sides. On one hand, I can understand and accept the gesture being made. I agree that the environment needs to be protected. My own personal view is that there is not sufficient science to say absolutely that global warming is the direct result of increased CO2 levels. Climatologists are trying to predict future climate change at a time when meteorologists and climatologists cannot accurately predict the winter temperature of Fairbanks, AK within +/- 15 degrees F. Mathematical models are numerical constructs designed to mimic real systems and cannot be accurate unless we do understand the basic mechanics we are trying to model. Putting aside the argument for or against global warming, the real issue in my mind is that humanity must realize that we are not a “natural” animal anymore and cannot act like one. Animals can throw their waste into the environment and the environment will reclaim it. We cannot because the environment cannot. We must find ECONOMICAL ways to reduce our impact. And, like it or not, the economics are an absolute requirement, unless you really want the total collapse of civilization Tsai Chi is talking about.
On the other hand, are you really suing the right people? Last I checked, developed nations pollute the most, by far. And generally speaking, those same developed nations are governed, not by a single leader, but by a large committee. Those sitting on the committees are, generally speaking, elected by the people of the nation, and supposedly represent their will. So, aren’t the “world leaders” you are trying to sue just figure heads with little real power?
On another note, I think it is sad that environmentalists are allowing global warming to become a smoke screen for so many more pressing and more dangerous issues we are facing right now, not thousands of years in the future. It should be kept in mind as an overall goal, but we cannot loose sight of the battles immediately before us. Clean(er) energy, water pollution, ground level air contamination, deforestation, etc. Every other battle seems to be going to way of the proverbial dodo in favor of something that probably cannot be won in our generation, and probably, if technological trends continue and the goal is kept in mind, can be solved much more easily and effectively, and with little or no impact on social organization or living standards. And, it would seem to me, that those same small battles immediately before us are the ones that will bring us closer to the zero carbon footprint goal. What would be the net carbon reduction if, on a global scale, a policy of mandatory recycling was introduced?

A top scioentist at Stanford University told me today re this lawsuit: “You are like Don Quixote here tilting at windmills, but it’s a useful effort. We each add grains of sand and hope for a landslide.”

Clinton Callahan, a climate activist from the USA who now lives in Germany, writes to me today re this lawsuit story post: “Fantastic!
I do not consider this to be a ‘stunt’ at all.
I consider that it should have been done 20 years ago by all the people who already knew that peak oil and methane clathrates would kill civilization without immediate and compelling new leadership choices for sustainability. That was not done, even though they had the information. Being sued for US$1 billion is the least of the consequences…”

The blog post above states: “One might argue in defence that world leaders are in fact trying to impose climate-saving measures. In Vienna last year, almost all rich nations agreed to consider cuts in greenhouse emissions of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Talks on a new climate treaty will be held in Poznan, Poland, from Dec. 1-12.”

What a laugh! Emissions from practically all Kyoto signatory nations are up substantially -in the case of Canada by over 20 percent – despite most of their industry having relocated to China etc., all as a direct result of the economic policies implemented by world leaders.

World leaders have no intention of doing anything to protect the environment or humanity’s future. All policy is directed towards the requirements of money lenders -which amounts to looting the planet as quickly as possible. .

While I do think that it’s a good thing to try to reduce pollution there is no strong link between human activities and the changes that are happening to the Earth’s climate beyond natural cycles as far as I have read.

Sure, we are changing the environment with our technological innovations and uses for natural resources but to say that we are causing a future apocalypse when, as AD Larsen stated previously, current weather models are woefully inadequate to predict even monthly cycles of weather for specific locations or regions is jumping to conclusions based off of faulty assumptions.

Besides, what is the point in suing World Leaders who are, by and large, elected officials who have to worry about more than just the environment? As long as there isn’t some sort of gross negligence or personal crime I can’t see anything coming from this. It’d be like trying to sue all U.S. elected officials for failing to foresee and prevent the current economic crisis even if it seems “obvious” in hind-sight.

This would be great if CO2 had anything to do with global warming.. Our sun’s activity is melting our earth poles and causing this climate. This can be seen also as stronger aurora borealis activity. Same thing is happening to every planet in our solar system, is that CO2 too? This CO2 theory is only good business, don’t fall for it. That’s why current US leaders haven’t done anything do fight against it either.

Delegates from nearly 190 countries gather for two weeks in Poznan, Poland, meeting for fourth time in the past year. Previous talks have witnessed bickering, clashes and compromise in what the top U.N. climate official calls the most difficult and complex international negotiation in history. They have set a deadline of December 2009 to complete an accord on reducing worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for changing the Earth’s climate. Some 9,000 delegates, activists and researchers will attend the Poznan meeting, which ends with a two-day summit of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, 150 environmental ministers.

I strongly believe that global warming is a huge crisis that needs to be dealt with and new clean energy sources need to be put in. What I dont agree with is the government throwing taxes on this and that just to suck more $ out of the consumer. If they are going to throw a gas tax on, then there better be some other damn alternatives other than gas to use in my car at every local corner.

It is simply obscene to suggest that this is a stunt on the part of Mr. Bloom. The history of this system, its rulers and cultures is a history of genocide, and the ICC Is exactly where this case belongs. Bush and others among the ruling elites have willfully and ongoingly ignored the evidence of mass death. Bush ignored the Pentagon’s own warnings on this matter, which predicted a world characterized by multiple and ongoing resource wars as global warming’s impacts progress. The world’s leaders are as informed – indeed much better informed – about the consequences before the world than we are.

Claiming that they are “trying” in an attempt to spread the blame to the millions of us who have no immediate power to act that in any way compares to that of the heads of governments makes a mockery of the entire concept of “responsible governance” and undercuts any shred of legitimacy these rulers might cling to. If its up to _me_ as much as it is up to them, Mr Block, then, it must also be the case that i have the same armies and police at my disposal as they to enforce my will as they do take the same armies they have to enforce my will. But, really, you know, _I_ am not committing genocide in Iraq. That is Bush’s burden, just as it was and remains the burden of Clinton and Albright before him. And _I_ am not willfully ignoring the evidence on global heating as are global leaders, or promoting phony schemes like the unworkable “cap and trade scam of Kyoto – scams and schemes that protect the profit of the rich- not the Life of the Earth. Those crime are the doing of the rulers Mr. Bloom is rightly suing. This entire _system_ profits at the expense of all Life. It is time they paid their debts. Mr. Gray Block has not succeeded in his attempt to mock Mr. Bloom. He has only managed to make a mockery of his own sense of the moral and ethical. Mr. Bloom, on the other hand, has dared to speak truth to power and to name this for what it is. Genocide. Ecocide. Geocide.

Murder and manslaughter are milder terms and lesser charges, and more moderate than what they global rulers deserve.

Give him the money only if he cant spend it on anything that uses fuel or was made in a system where fuel was used. aka everything… Without burning fossil fuels there would be no cars, no computers, no electricity, and no dumb lawsuits. Has the man ever enjoyed having a bed to sleep on, or a car to get to the grocery store? Well, then he is part of the problem. The fact is burning fossil fuels might cause global warming but the benefits at this time out weigh the risks. (and comeon, we are working to make things more earth frindly)

although improbable i hope this case comes to a trial. i am sure the alarmists will never allow it to happen however. let’s put science into play for once. co2 is a polutant? really? i think we may as well say o2 is one as well. without o2 we couldn’t produce the nasty co2 therefore, eliminate o2 and lovelock gore hansen strong (as in maurice, why dont we ever hear his name?) will be sated by killing off life…..oh no wait, they just want humans to die…read the club of rome nonsense, google the green agenda…get a life pal and do something useful.

PRO AND CON; Says a scientist in Australia who read this blog: “I’m a long way from convinced that ‘stunts’ like this will serve any useful purpose. There’s no shortage of awareness of the risks, it what to do about it that’s at issue.”

Let’s hope the 9000 people attending the Poznan talks this week and next make some headway on tackling the problem. I hope it won’t be all talk talk talk. The clock is ticking. Will humanity make it to 2500 AD?

A skeptic who does not believe in manmade global warming, what science calls AGW, tells me in email: “This suit is actually pretty good for us skeptics and denialists. If the ICC prosecutor takes the case, he’s going to have to prove damages, damages caused by human C02 emissions. If he can’t, it’ll be a major blow against the anthropomorphic global warming industry — that’s if the media covers it….
And since we know he can’t prove manmade C02 is causing global warming, or even that the Earth is warming, we should look forward to this case with eager anticipation.”

A woman in Sweden writes in, too: “I see, the lawsuit is intended as a wake-up call; an alarm bell for the future. Got it! And that is totally something I can get behind. I think it’s a wonderful and audacious (to use a word that has come into our collective consciousness lately, due to Obama) gesture.”

Mark, in a positive note, in an email, told me: “Indeed it is all of us who should bring the suit. I often wondered if I could do the paperwork to bring such a suit at the Hague, but ,always, for some silly reason or another, I put it on the back burner, and never got to researching exactly how to file it. You are going forward with one of my many dream ideas I have about combatting global warming. I am in favor of what you are doing ,and often thought myself. You are an excellent person for starting such an undertaking. Thank you for spending your own time and resources on this issue.”

We do need action now. I would personally like to include the corporations, especially those in the energy and car lobbies to be called to account for failing to use of existing technology to make reductions in CO2 emissions.

“Perhaps the global collective of individuals, governments and industry is to blame”

– yes, but governments play the role of regulating individuals and industry. When independent choices can hurt other individuals in society we ask our governments to make laws to protect us from harmful choices. We need our governments to pass better laws– to ensure that we don’t just hurt the earth/ourselves less and rather we begin to help revive the living systems that we depend on for survival. “sustainability”

“And since we know he can’t prove manmade C02 is causing global warming, or even that the Earth is warming, we should look forward to this case with eager anticipation.”

My question to this is……how can we not prove it? have you seen the differances in the polar Caps since teh 80′s? Big differance adn theres nothing to explain these occurances but to man made CO2….or at least thats what all fingers are pointing at.
the flooding….the deforestation, they ALL link together,
no trees = no air filters. no ice = no cooling of the oceans – which in turn melts more ice, makes more floods. I think this guy should Sue the world leaders, we shoud ALL back him…what do we have to lose, a little time..thats alot better than loseing Earth isnt it?

I heard today that “Group to Sue EPA Over Impact of C02 Emissions on Oceans”. The Center for Biological Diversity has announced that it intends to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its failure to use the Clean Water Act to prevent a growing acidification of the ocean resulting from massive absorption of carbon dioxide. The suit would mark the first time that an environmental group attempts to use clean water statutes to control greenhouse gas emissions. Interesting.

Sven writes from Brussels: “I’m a Kyoto Protocol consultant, working now with 16 young university students/alumni from the African Diaspora living here. Some are lawyers. I’ve been mentioning a lawsuit preparation just like your lawsuit during our workshops and was happy to read about your actions.”

It will take several years to approve and fully implement comprehensive new alternative energy policies, however the Obama administration promises a new era of energy and environment policy for the United States. Obama expressed his intention to shift the U.S. away from petroleum as its primary energy source and towards alternative renewable energy sources, advanced biofuels and efficient, low greenhouse-gas-emitting technologies.

The key policy initiatives involve caps on emissions such as carbon dioxide and auctioning of greenhouse gas credits to motivate a fundamental shift from high emitting industries to low-carbon energy alternatives. Obama has stated that the policy would be broader than any other cap and trade system proposed or in place to date in the world.

In order to implement the policy, renewable energy, natural gas, plug-in hybrid vehicles and advanced electricity transmission are expected to receive substantial incentives. Obama has proposed drawing upon $150 billion from the emissions auction to finance low-carbon alternatives over the next several years.

If you want to review a full analysis of global warming, a good source is http://www.onebiosphere.com

The process of reducing emissions would start by targeting the fossil fuel industry. Oil companies are concerned about policies such as windfall profits taxes. Oil industry proponents state that oil companies need to gain access to areas closer to the coastline. Obama has already altered his policy regarding offshore oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf due to the recent spike in oil and gas prices.

Bob Williamson writes from Perth, Australia to me: “What a great idea. I have launched a class action lawsuit for compenstion of the birds and plants and oceans that are sequestering carbon emissions. I’m looking to get 15 percent of global GDP to fix the climate crisis.”

To correct some false statements made here: The world HAS warmed in the last ten years. And there IS a clear consensus among the top scientists in the world that mankind is contributing to global warming. Even the energy companies have stopped pretending that we are not.

Leigh Huagen emailed this to me today: “Just like your fellow cult members, you are clearly in love with the idea
that mankind is evil and destined to destroy himself and the planet. People
like you are mentally ill – global warming is the greatest scam in world
history. Do some research with an open mind instead of blindly repeating
the lies and quoting the liars just because you want to believe it’s all
true.”

Svend Erik Hendriksen from Greenland wrote: “You forgot a very important point in your lawsuit. If your concerns for the climate change are genuine and true, then you forgot to mention ‘The missing plan B’ — a lack of precision in the planning on climate change. It maybe getting cooler very soon and not one government in this world has a plan for cooling. Many countries connect climate change direct with security policy, if the governments don’t have a plan B for (global cooling) then they have a enormous gap in their climate and security policy. Global cooling will effect about 80 percent of the world’s polulation humanitarian and demographic and will be a huge security risk.”

An interesting way to challenge the veracity of the CO2 = Global Warming theory. If all the planets, including the Sun, in the Sola System have heated in unison with the earth, it stands to reason it is’t our cars and power plant emmissions that has created the planetary temperature fluctuation. To curtail the production of CO2 (an essential to life on earth) is like saying we must stop the evaporation cycle (rain) because of the havoc Flooding causes. If the real aim is, as many suspect, to release us from the clutches of the oil producers, then say so. As it stands, we are being urinated on while being told it’s raining

On the legal standpoint, it’s not his right to sue those guys for global warming. He is not legally responsible for suing on behalf of our future generations or for the planet for that matter. Sure it might be for a good cause, but he will fail just because he can’t legally collect $1 billion for our future generations and for Mother Earth. Nice try, buddy, but maybe next time, sue them for something you can actually collect for. Otherwise, you’re just throwing money around. And FYI, think of all the paperwork you’re causing. I think I just heard a tree fall because of you.

Urmee Kahn in London reports that “Victims of global warming could sue oil and power companies”, adding:
“Flood victims and those affected by extreme weather conditions could
soon be able to sue oil and power companies they blame for global
warming, according to climate change expert Myles Allen, a physicist at Oxford University. Dr Allen himself says: “We are starting
to get to the point that when an adverse weather event occurs we can
quantify how much more likely it was made by human activity. And people adversely affected by climate change today are in a
position to document and quantify their losses. This is going to be hugely important.” It is getting interestinger and interestinger…

A friend in Canada writes in about this suit: “There may be repercussions for these deniers and avoiders. That’s right, there’s good news as those in power may some day have to pay for their crimes against the planet. Of course it won’t be only Canadian leaders; I’m sure all the industrialized countries will get their due as well along with the newer players on the scene, those wacky emerging markets. The home of the current Climate Change conference, Poland, along with her other Central/Eastern European neighbours should also expect to shoulder some of the legal problems for blocking an EU climate package. I’m talking about the class action lawsuit to be lodged by one Dan Bloom in the International Court of Justice against all world leaders for failing to prevent global warming this week.”

Peter Papadopoulos tells me: “The shocking thing about your lawsuit is that — you could win. Tiny as the odds may be, the reason the lawsuit story really gets people’s attention is because it is reality based and “dangerous” in that regard — you are attacking the system through with the system’s own tools.”

Guy MacPherson, professor in Arizona, has his doubts and support for the lawsuit, writing: “Great stuff, and good for you. But I doubt you’ll make much progress, sad to say — the courts are perhaps the most conservative part
of the conservative establishment. I wish you well, though.”

The Information Desk at the ICC wrote to me today: “Thank you for the communication that you sent to the International Criminal Court(ICC). Attached you’ll find a file on how to submit your claim to the ICC. With kind regards…”

I would encourage you to refine your claims, refine your target plaintiffs, and do some more homework to increase your legal savvy. Be pragmatic, be realistic, be bold, & be innovative while following in the footsteps of others.

Environmentalists are legal trail blazers and you should examine their innovations. The Alien Tort Claims Act is a potent tool used by environmentalists. I would suggest an environmental lawsuit against the major polluters in Taiwan. Perhaps a Taiwan company owned by the KMT? A Politically Owned Enterprise (POEs) would definitely put some teeth in your campaign. A POE with any degree of business exposure to a US jurisdiction would be even better. Foriegn Soverign Immunities Act (FSIA) allows for the legal use of maritime liens to collect…imagine seizing a POE-owned ship sailing into a US harbor. Find a Taiwanese Valduz!

In addition, you should raise donations for your “legal defense fund”. Your IRS 501(c)(3) can engage in various types of litigation in the public interest and you can configure your litigation so the “nonprofit corporation” is the plaintiff or supplies money for the plaintiffs. It is not a law firm but retains a licensed attorney to litigate the case that is selected by your own Board of Directors. Do some research on the “human rights and civil rights organizations” under 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations on the IRS website. Get savvy and you’ll be very effective! This area of law is full of potential angles to exploit and to make your foes pay up for their misdeeds!

Convert the misuse of an American military commission into a premier tool of environmentalist legal venues.
Get the US as the hegemonic prime mover in the world to enforce multilateral treaties and geopolitical strategy will have legal teeth. Try unilateral enforcement of the multilateral treaties? The British Navy used the right of belligerents under the Law of War to stop the slave trade on the High Seas. It was progressive for the era, so brainstorm how the Law of War could become your own tool of progressive enforcement.

A detractor sent me this email and it is a good one, too: “It’s a publicity stunt nothing more. I despise fundamentalists whether they’re on the right or left. Clowns like this one hurt the environmental movement. He might even do a little research on the ICC — this is not a civil court nor do he have any standing — and the U.S., which is the world’s largest polluter, is not a signatory to the Rome treaty. You might try educating yourself on the details of the ICC first.”

An update on this lawsuit. The lawsuit was not accepted by the ICC in the Hague, with the ICC saying that they do not accept such individual lawsuits or class action suits and advising me to go elsewhere. I decided to take this lawsuit therefore directly to the CoPO, that is the Court of Public Opinion, in every country of the world, and that is where the lawsuit now rests and will remain until justice is served. I am not going to “rest my case”. To the contrary, we are going to continue fighting for this lawsuit in the CoPO, and hope that the resulting publicity will galvanzie people and leaders into taking action against climate change ASAP. I rest my case, not!

This quote by another reader here is apt: “It is interesting to note the the ice shelves have been in place for the last 10,000 years. That roughly marks the end of the last ice age. The rise of civilization was possible only because of the stable and warm climate conditions that have prevailed. These conditions allowed agriculture production to rise to a point where many people could now do other things with their hands besides hunting and foraging.

For better or worse we are at a crucial juncture for all life on Earth, not just humans. We have done a masterful job building civilization to this point with our hands. Maybe the next evolutionary step is to continue building civilization by using our brains too.

A veteran science report in France told me today: “Nice idea, but the message you deliver will, by that time, be 99 years out of date — you address the graduating class of 2099 as if they were facing the choices we face today. They won’t. On the cusp of the 22nd century, the globe will either be in Lovelock-type meltdown because we didn’t act soon and forcefully enough (or because it was already too late even in 2009, which is what Lovelock thinks); or the C02 levels will have stabilized and gone down because our wise or courageous political leaders did the right thing so that nine billion people could survive on Earth in harmony and peace…..Now, I ask you: which scenario do you think is more likely?” MY ANSWER: LOVELOCK WILL BE RIGHT. SIGH.

Will someone someday defend an unborn generation in court?The World Future Council, a group of 50 activists, politicians and thinkers from around the world, is focused on finding ways to prevent today’s actions from constraining tomorrow’s choices. The group just wrapped up a two-day symposium in Montreal at which more than 100 experts in international law explored ways to use legal tools, most of which are oriented toward doling out justice among those alive now, to avert what amount to crimes against the future.

I’m not sure how this guy is being taken so seriously when he uses language like “manslaughter”. I agree that something should be done, but I think he is going about it the wrong way.

The government can prevent prevent global warming using various techniques such as adding a Pigouvian Tax on industries that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change, but if Dan Bloom wants to sue someone it should not be world leaders for not imposing the correct restrictions, but instead the corporations that contribute to global warming. Why sue governments when they are not the ones causing the problem. there are other organizations such as http://www.claimer.org/howwill that are trying to do just that. they should combine their claims together into a large lawsuit, but not at governments, but at the corporations.

Author Profile

Aaron specialises in the chemical and biotech sectors in the Netherlands alongside daily equities and general news reporting duties. He also covers the international criminal courts from The Hague. He began his career as a newspaper reporter and sub-editor in Australia in 1994. He has lived in the Netherlands since March 2000.